I think what I’m reacting to is the knee-jerk reaction to hearing the word “God,” even in the context of who we were. As you say, I think it is important to recognize the where we come from as we decide who we are now. And, recognizing that who wear now is an ever-changing thing–as individuals, as congregations, as a denomination. But your thoughtful response here has challenged me to move forward with acceptance of those who react to God for whatever reason. Thanks, again!

I hear a couple of concerns and questions running through the comments:

1. The concern that discussing the theological history of Unitarianism and Universalism is the same as actually adopting the theologies of the past. I think this is what uuMomma’s fellow congregant is expressing, and maybe part of what Miya is concerned about too? The way I see it, learning about UU history and actually reverting back to our older beliefs are too different things.

We need to learn about our history, and that includes a frank discussion of what our UU ancestors thought about GOD! However, I am not a fan of the “our ancestors were Christian so we should be too” or “our ancestors believed in God so we should too” kind of thinking.

2. The question asked by Miya, “If a major part of the essence of UU history is a rejection of what came before, how can we look to the past rather than to the future?” This is closely related to another question….

3. IS “a rejection of what came before” really an important part of our UU history? Is this how our ancestors understood their beliefs and/or how we should understand them? Steven R argues instead that “the early U and U weren’t a rejection of some of the orthodox Christian theology - they saw their views instead as a correction back to the original Christian Theology.” (By the way, Steven, your history sermon sounds awesome!)

Miya, I hope this isn’t a cop-out, but I really need to take a few days to consider how to best answer #2 and #3, which I will do in an upcoming post. (In the meantime, anyone else who can take a stab at these, please do!)

#4. How do we answer the question of who ARE as UU’s without focusing on what we are NOT? The way that works best for me is to talk about our history, about the spiritual activities happening in my congregations, and about the principles of Unitarian Universalism that have been most meaningful to me. However, there are a lot of different ways UU’s address the question. I do it’s important, as Miya suggests, to focus on what UUism IS, without getting mired in what we’re not.

Very interesting post. It addressed an issue that has come up of late along the road of my spiritual journey. When I first came to UUism, only a few years ago, one of the things that made me proud to be a UU was our history: of each decision point along the way (the rejection of trinitarianism then of Christianity at least as a shared faith, the Congregational Platform, the split from the then-conservative now-UCC, and so on) represented a choice to reject traditional thinking or being in favor of religious freedom, noncreedal faith, and democracy rather than hierarchy. I am still proud of all of those things. However, I think the trend in our history does make it harder to embrace the idea of identification with history at all, and maybe this is where some of the topic you addressed arises. If a major part of the essence of UU history is a rejection of what came before, how can we look to the past rather than to the future? How can we build ritual and tradition, knowing that change and questioning are our core values?

(I’m going a bit beyond what you are advocating, obviously, and I’m certainly not as well versed in religious history. But I’d love to hear your thoughts on this.)

Thanks ~Miya

First of all, like it? who cares. Experience the service, don’t approve or disapprove.

Second of all—Unitarian History without talk about God?

That’s like Oreos with no filling, if you ask me. Dry and pointless.